The The emptying or cleansing of purgation is the final liberation before we join God in life everlasting where there will be not need for any further liberating moments in our lives...just illuminating ones...which would be a continuing theosis..

This is speculating on your part and not Catholic teaching. As others have noted there are only TWO dogmas on the transitional post-mortem state.

It certainly is the teaching of the Church concerning the spiritual life.

We are sorry that you can't avoid search-and-destroy mode in these discussions.

Here is (part of) what Dr. Dragani wrote in reply to my email to him ...

Here's what I find strange: when someone asks him about it, he seems to have plenty of time to discuss it with him or her (for example, his email to you, and his conversation with Fr. Ambrose and others at byzcath); but when it comes to fixing what he said on his own webpage, he only has (or takes) the time to do the absolute minimum (and Fr. Ambrose would probably say that he didn't even do the minimum).

You *could* always email him and ask him about that . But he may have higher priorities.

In any event, in the link you provided earlier on byzcath.org (thanks for that, btw!) he addresses very well Fr. Ambrose's concerns-even the ones he has written about on *this* thread (interesting that he seems to have forgotten about that) about what he means by "final theosis". He even provides quotes and references. Fr. Ambrose, in that discussion, doesn't critique Dragani's explanations so one could reasonably presume that he found them acceptable. But now, he seems to not find them acceptable. Or...am I just confused......again?

Here is (part of) what Dr. Dragani wrote in reply to my email to him ...

Here's what I find strange: when someone asks him about it, he seems to have plenty of time to discuss it with him or her (for example, his email to you, and his conversation with Fr. Ambrose and others at byzcath); but when it comes to fixing what he said on his own webpage, he only has (or takes) the time to do the absolute minimum (and Fr. Ambrose would probably say that he didn't even do the minimum).

You *could* always email him and ask him about that . But he may have higher priorities.

In any event, in the link you provided earlier on byzcath.org (thanks for that, btw!) he addresses very well Fr. Ambrose's concerns-even the ones he has written about on *this* thread (interesting that he seems to have forgotten about that) about what he means by "final theosis". He even provides quotes and references. Fr. Ambrose, in that discussion, doesn't critique Dragani's explanations so one could reasonably presume that he found them acceptable. But now, he seems to not find them acceptable. Or...am I just confused......again?

In the sense that the phrase is used it is a reference to the idea that we experience union with the divine throughout our lives but never in such a way that it becomes a permanent condition of our lives here on earth. "Final theosis" would be a reference to that ultimate time when we are united with the Indwelling in such a way that it is a permanent part of our person. I continue to think that it is unfortunate and dangerous "stand-alone" phrasing.

At best it is a manner of speaking that requires much review, explanation and historical study of saints and spiritual leaders both east and west. Personally I would not use the phrase. Rather I would describe the condition as an ultimate transfiguration and talk about what that means with respect to our lives here and our life everlasting.

I am not impressed with Father Ambrose's periodic attack on it, however.

The The emptying or cleansing of purgation is the final liberation before we join God in life everlasting where there will be not need for any further liberating moments in our lives...just illuminating ones...which would be a continuing theosis..

This is speculating on your part and not Catholic teaching. As others have noted there are only TWO dogmas on the transitional post-mortem state.

It certainly is the teaching of the Church concerning the spiritual life.

We are sorry that you can't avoid search-and-destroy mode in these discussions.

We are citing what is said by Anthony Dragani, a known Ruthenian Catholic theologian and a professor of religion (I don't recall where.)

I think that your erroneous claims will be more destructive in the long run than my claimed "search-and-destroy."

Here is (part of) what Dr. Dragani wrote in reply to my email to him ...

Here's what I find strange: when someone asks him about it, he seems to have plenty of time to discuss it with him or her (for example, his email to you, and his conversation with Fr. Ambrose and others at byzcath); but when it comes to fixing what he said on his own webpage, he only has (or takes) the time to do the absolute minimum (and Fr. Ambrose would probably say that he didn't even do the minimum).

You *could* always email him and ask him about that . But he may have higher priorities.

In any event, in the link you provided earlier on byzcath.org (thanks for that, btw!) he addresses very well Fr. Ambrose's concerns-even the ones he has written about on *this* thread (interesting that he seems to have forgotten about that) about what he means by "final theosis". He even provides quotes and references. Fr. Ambrose, in that discussion, doesn't critique Dragani's explanations so one could reasonably presume that he found them acceptable. But now, he seems to not find them acceptable. Or...am I just confused......again?

The Irish Hermit is of the opinion that the article, written when Dragani says he was a theological neophyte, will not be amended. I think that what we may witness with Dragani is the adoption of a poorly thought out conceit which he embraced and which he is now reluctant to abandon. An Orthodox spiritual father would need to examine if there are elements of prelest/plani. He had to admit he was wrong but only in a footnote to his article and so now we have a contradictory and confusing article.

I don’t engage his subsequent justifications for his position of Final Theosis because 1) his position which was initially wrong is now also confused and contradictory and 2) I’d like to see academic integrity come into play and the contradiction resolved and removed from his article. Until then, what is the point in trying to address a messy situation?

Here is (part of) what Dr. Dragani wrote in reply to my email to him ...

Here's what I find strange: when someone asks him about it, he seems to have plenty of time to discuss it with him or her (for example, his email to you, and his conversation with Fr. Ambrose and others at byzcath); but when it comes to fixing what he said on his own webpage, he only has (or takes) the time to do the absolute minimum (and Fr. Ambrose would probably say that he didn't even do the minimum).

You *could* always email him and ask him about that . But he may have higher priorities.

In any event, in the link you provided earlier on byzcath.org (thanks for that, btw!) he addresses very well Fr. Ambrose's concerns-even the ones he has written about on *this* thread (interesting that he seems to have forgotten about that) about what he means by "final theosis". He even provides quotes and references. Fr. Ambrose, in that discussion, doesn't critique Dragani's explanations so one could reasonably presume that he found them acceptable. But now, he seems to not find them acceptable. Or...am I just confused......again?

The Irish Hermit is of the opinion that the article, written when Dragani says he was a theological neophyte, will not be amended. I think that what we may witness with Dragani is the adoption of a poorly thought out conceit which he embraced and which he is now reluctant to abandon. An Orthodox spiritual father would need to examine if there are elements of prelest/plani. He had to admit he was wrong but only in a footnote to his article and so now we have a contradictory and confusing article.

I don’t engage his subsequent justifications for his position of Final Theosis because 1) his position which was initially wrong is now also confused and contradictory and 2) I’d like to see academic integrity come into play and the contradiction resolved and removed from his article. Until then, what is the point in trying to address a messy situation?

"We've just come from Aunt Molly's funeral. Right now she is undergoing Final Theosis."

I just went back and re-read that post from Dr. Dragani on byzcath. My impression is that he was strictly addressing the idea that the phrase "final theosis" is wrong in and of itself. (He provides an extremely impressive -- and from my p.o.v. extremely unnecessary -- collection of quotes that use that phrase.) I don't know whether he ever addressed the idea that "final theosis" is an acceptable phrase but that his webpage still needs to be changed, to remove the parts that imply/suggest that purgatory is the "final theosis".

Here is (part of) what Dr. Dragani wrote in reply to my email to him ...

Here's what I find strange: when someone asks him about it, he seems to have plenty of time to discuss it with him or her (for example, his email to you, and his conversation with Fr. Ambrose and others at byzcath); but when it comes to fixing what he said on his own webpage, he only has (or takes) the time to do the absolute minimum (and Fr. Ambrose would probably say that he didn't even do the minimum).

You *could* always email him and ask him about that . But he may have higher priorities.

In any event, in the link you provided earlier on byzcath.org (thanks for that, btw!) he addresses very well Fr. Ambrose's concerns-even the ones he has written about on *this* thread (interesting that he seems to have forgotten about that) about what he means by "final theosis". He even provides quotes and references. Fr. Ambrose, in that discussion, doesn't critique Dragani's explanations so one could reasonably presume that he found them acceptable. But now, he seems to not find them acceptable. Or...am I just confused......again?

The Irish Hermit is of the opinion that the article, written when Dragani says he was a theological neophyte, will not be amended. I think that what we may witness with Dragani is the adoption of a poorly thought out conceit which he embraced and which he is now reluctant to abandon. An Orthodox spiritual father would need to examine if there are elements of prelest/plani. He had to admit he was wrong but only in a footnote to his article and so now we have a contradictory and confusing article.

I don’t engage his subsequent justifications for his position of Final Theosis because 1) his position which was initially wrong is now also confused and contradictory and 2) I’d like to see academic integrity come into play and the contradiction resolved and removed from his article. Until then, what is the point in trying to address a messy situation?

"We've just come from Aunt Molly's funeral. Right now she is undergoing Final Theosis."

I just went back and re-read that post from Dr. Dragani on byzcath. My impression is that he was strictly addressing the idea that the phrase "final theosis" is wrong in and of itself. (He provides an extremely impressive -- and from my p.o.v. extremely unnecessary -- collection of quotes that use that phrase.) I don't know whether he ever addressed the idea that "final theosis" is an acceptable phrase but that his webpage still needs to be changed, to remove the parts that imply/suggest that purgatory is the "final theosis".

At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance and lack of understanding yet again, if this statement "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. " is true, what's to fight about?

These two statements are in agreement with the tradition of the Church (or can be interpreted as such.)

But would it be honest and truthful to say that Catholics stop there?

We don't stop there because there is much more to be said. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth,which gradually unfolds through development of doctrine. We don't just draw doctrines from a particular regional theological tradition of the distant past,we develop doctrines from all legitimate theological traditions,and Rome is the trustworthy,ever-present teacher where all true doctrines converge and are confirmed.

At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance and lack of understanding yet again, if this statement "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. " is true, what's to fight about?

These two statements are in agreement with the tradition of the Church (or can be interpreted as such.)

At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance and lack of understanding yet again, if this statement "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. " is true, what's to fight about?

These two statements are in agreement with the tradition of the Church (or can be interpreted as such.)

But would it be honest and truthful to say that Catholics stop there?

We don't stop there because there is much more to be said. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth,which gradually unfolds through development of doctrine. We don't just draw doctrines from a particular regional theological tradition of the distant past,we develop doctrines from all legitimate theological traditions,and Rome is the trustworthy,ever-present teacher where all true doctrines converge and are confirmed.

We are told there are only two dogmas concerning Purgatory...

1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance and lack of understanding yet again, if this statement "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. " is true, what's to fight about?

These two statements are in agreement with the tradition of the Church (or can be interpreted as such.)

But would it be honest and truthful to say that Catholics stop there?

We don't stop there because there is much more to be said. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth,which gradually unfolds through development of doctrine. We don't just draw doctrines from a particular regional theological tradition of the distant past,we develop doctrines from all legitimate theological traditions,and Rome is the trustworthy,ever-present teacher where all true doctrines converge and are confirmed.

We are told there are only two dogmas concerning Purgatory...

1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

What specific developments have taken place since then?

What are the newly developed doctrines about Purgatory?

I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that anthony022071 was speaking, er, writing generally and not specifically about Purgatory.

This has been posted before, but I guess it never hurts to repeat. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:"III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611"

To the best of my pretty limited knowledge there are no "newly developed doctrines about Purgatory". There may be much spilled ink elaborating on the above, or explaining it, or documenting someone's private revelation, or what have you, but I think what the Catechism states is plenty, don't you?

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But that could just be wishful thinking on my part, so if I'm wrong about this, I hope my fellow Catholics will correct me.

If you want an authoritative discussion of sin and sins in the Catholic teaching, I suggest you go here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/index/s.htm#Sin%28s%29 rather than having me or someone else feed it to you, and perhaps get it wrong. If then, there's something you have questions about or take issue with, perhaps we can discuss it.

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you. Or was there supposed to be a question in there? If so, I didn't see the question mark and it looks like you're drawing some "interesting" conclusions. I just told you how *I* read the parts about "lesser faults", etc., not what the Catechism says or the Church teaches.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist. You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things. I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them !

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist. You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things. I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them !

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist. You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things. I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can.

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link. This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist. You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things. I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can.

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELYthe words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link. This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist. You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things. I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can.

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELYthe words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link. This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

Amrosian Resonse: "I'm so clever. I'm going to find a way to paint what the Catholic Church teaches in the most negative aspect possible. It will give me a nice little straw man to beat the crap out of."

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist. You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things. I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can.

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELYthe words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link. This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

Amrosian Resonse: "I'm so clever. I'm going to find a way to paint what the Catholic Church teaches in the most negative aspect possible. It will give me a nice little straw man to beat the crap out of."

Not to distract from J Michael's question, but I'd like to ask a question of my own: What does this mean for the other catechisms? What say you 3 Catholics (or anyone else who wants to respond)?

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here. The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults". Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"? Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic! You tell me me about "lesser faults." Is kicking your dog a lesser fault? Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped. Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else ?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins". Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however, has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins. Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist. You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things. I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can.

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELYthe words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link. This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

Amrosian Resonse: "I'm so clever. I'm going to find a way to paint what the Catholic Church teaches in the most negative aspect possible. It will give me a nice little straw man to beat the crap out of."

Not to distract from J Michael's question, but I'd like to ask a question of my own: What does this mean for the other catechisms? What say you 3 Catholics (or anyone else who wants to respond)?

I personally don't know, as I'm not yet familiar enough with the Trent Catechism to be able to make a comparison--but I'm workin' on it .

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other. To what end, really?

At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance and lack of understanding yet again, if this statement "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. " is true, what's to fight about?

These two statements are in agreement with the tradition of the Church (or can be interpreted as such.)

But would it be honest and truthful to say that Catholics stop there?

We don't stop there because there is much more to be said. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth,which gradually unfolds through development of doctrine. We don't just draw doctrines from a particular regional theological tradition of the distant past,we develop doctrines from all legitimate theological traditions,and Rome is the trustworthy,ever-present teacher where all true doctrines converge and are confirmed.

We are told there are only two dogmas concerning Purgatory...

1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

What specific developments have taken place since then?

What are the newly developed doctrines about Purgatory?

I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that anthony022071 was speaking, er, writing generally and not specifically about Purgatory.

You are right that I was speaking generally,but what I said applies to the doctrine of purgatory. There is much more to be said about purgatory than just the basics,just like there is much more to be said about the doctrine of the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ than what is said in the Nicene Creed.

Quote

This has been posted before, but I guess it never hurts to repeat. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:"III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611"

To the best of my pretty limited knowledge there are no "newly developed doctrines about Purgatory". There may be much spilled ink elaborating on the above, or explaining it, or documenting someone's private revelation, or what have you, but I think what the Catechism states is plenty, don't you?

What the Catechism says is enough for a fundamental knowledge of purgatory,but we can learn more about it from the writings of certain saints and theologians,such as St. Faustina,who was given a vision of purgatory.

At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance and lack of understanding yet again, if this statement "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. " is true, what's to fight about?

These two statements are in agreement with the tradition of the Church (or can be interpreted as such.)

But would it be honest and truthful to say that Catholics stop there?

We don't stop there because there is much more to be said. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth,which gradually unfolds through development of doctrine. We don't just draw doctrines from a particular regional theological tradition of the distant past,we develop doctrines from all legitimate theological traditions,and Rome is the trustworthy,ever-present teacher where all true doctrines converge and are confirmed.

We are told there are only two dogmas concerning Purgatory...

1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

What specific developments have taken place since then?

What are the newly developed doctrines about Purgatory?

I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that anthony022071 was speaking, er, writing generally and not specifically about Purgatory.

You are right that I was speaking generally,but what I said applies to the doctrine of purgatory. There is much more to be said about purgatory than just the basics,just like there is much more to be said about the doctrine of the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ than what is said in the Nicene Creed.

Quote

This has been posted before, but I guess it never hurts to repeat. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:"III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611"

To the best of my pretty limited knowledge there are no "newly developed doctrines about Purgatory". There may be much spilled ink elaborating on the above, or explaining it, or documenting someone's private revelation, or what have you, but I think what the Catechism states is plenty, don't you?

It is enough for a fundamental knowledge of purgatory,but we can learn more about it from the writings of certain saints and theologians,such as St. Faustina,who was given a vision of purgatory.

Not to downplay at all the vision of St. Faustina (she's one of my favorite saints), or the writings of others, but....do we really *need* more than a fundamental knowledge of purgatory? We are not required to accept private visions or revelations as dogma or doctrine, and much of what has been written about purgatory, etc., is speculation, is it not?

Not to downplay at all the vision of St. Faustina (she's one of my favorite saints), or the writings of others, but....do we really *need* more than a fundamental knowledge of purgatory?

Not always,but in a way we do need more. We should accept whatever is true. It is evident from the visitations and visions of the saints that Jesus and Mary want us to know more about truth than what is found in catechisms,and they want to convey truth in a more persuasive manner then any catechism can.

Quote

We are not required to accept private visions or revelations as dogma or doctrine, and much of what has been written about purgatory, etc., is speculation, is it not?

Private visions and revelations are not themselves dogma or doctrine,so we don't need to accept them as such,but if they are accepted as true by the magisterium,they should be accepted as true by us. Much of what is written of doctrines is speculative,but if it is entirely in harmony with Catholic dogma,then it worthy of belief.

Amrosian Resonse: "I'm so clever. I'm going to find a way to paint what the Catholic Church teaches in the most negative aspect possible. It will give me a nice little straw man to beat the crap out of."

Not to downplay at all the vision of St. Faustina (she's one of my favorite saints), or the writings of others, but....do we really *need* more than a fundamental knowledge of purgatory?

Not always,but in a way we do need more. We should accept whatever is true. It is evident from the visitations and visions of the saints that Jesus and Mary want us to know more about truth than what is found in catechisms,and they want to convey truth in a more persuasive manner then any catechism can.

Quote

We are not required to accept private visions or revelations as dogma or doctrine, and much of what has been written about purgatory, etc., is speculation, is it not?

Private visions and revelations are not themselves dogma or doctrine,so we don't need to accept them as such,but if they are accepted as true by the magisterium,they should be accepted as true by us. Much of what is written of doctrines is speculative,but if it is entirely in harmony with Catholic dogma,then it worthy of belief.

Okay, I'll happily grant you that!

Being somewhat of a skeptic myself, I have to ask, "Alright...just which of those private visions and revelations are, indeed, accepted as true by the magisterium?" If you can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Also, is there consistency in the reported visions/revelations that *are* accepted by the magisterium?

(You can p.m. me about this if you think it's digressing too much from the op of this thread.)

All I can say is that a relatively small number of the total claimed visions have been accepted as legitimate by the RCC. Somebody's always saying that they've seen something, but just because there's a report of a sandwich shaped like a halo on the news, doesn't mean the RCC requires people to believe that it's true.

Not to downplay at all the vision of St. Faustina (she's one of my favorite saints), or the writings of others, but....do we really *need* more than a fundamental knowledge of purgatory?

Not always,but in a way we do need more. We should accept whatever is true. It is evident from the visitations and visions of the saints that Jesus and Mary want us to know more about truth than what is found in catechisms,and they want to convey truth in a more persuasive manner then any catechism can.

Quote

We are not required to accept private visions or revelations as dogma or doctrine, and much of what has been written about purgatory, etc., is speculation, is it not?

Private visions and revelations are not themselves dogma or doctrine,so we don't need to accept them as such,but if they are accepted as true by the magisterium,they should be accepted as true by us. Much of what is written of doctrines is speculative,but if it is entirely in harmony with Catholic dogma,then it worthy of belief.

Okay, I'll happily grant you that!

Being somewhat of a skeptic myself, I have to ask, "Alright...just which of those private visions and revelations are, indeed, accepted as true by the magisterium?" If you can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Also, is there consistency in the reported visions/revelations that *are* accepted by the magisterium?

(You can p.m. me about this if you think it's digressing too much from the op of this thread.)

I don't think the magisterium examines all the private revelations of holy persons - that is done by theologians in Rome who examine the lives and writings of religious persons - but if Rome has canonized someone as a holy person,then his private visions and revelations must be acceptable to the magisterium. The pope wouldn't canonize someone who lied about having seen or heard Jesus and Mary,or who communicated false visions and revelations as true.

Not to downplay at all the vision of St. Faustina (she's one of my favorite saints), or the writings of others, but....do we really *need* more than a fundamental knowledge of purgatory?

Not always,but in a way we do need more. We should accept whatever is true. It is evident from the visitations and visions of the saints that Jesus and Mary want us to know more about truth than what is found in catechisms,and they want to convey truth in a more persuasive manner then any catechism can.

Quote

We are not required to accept private visions or revelations as dogma or doctrine, and much of what has been written about purgatory, etc., is speculation, is it not?

Private visions and revelations are not themselves dogma or doctrine,so we don't need to accept them as such,but if they are accepted as true by the magisterium,they should be accepted as true by us. Much of what is written of doctrines is speculative,but if it is entirely in harmony with Catholic dogma,then it worthy of belief.

Okay, I'll happily grant you that!

Being somewhat of a skeptic myself, I have to ask, "Alright...just which of those private visions and revelations are, indeed, accepted as true by the magisterium?" If you can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Also, is there consistency in the reported visions/revelations that *are* accepted by the magisterium?

(You can p.m. me about this if you think it's digressing too much from the op of this thread.)

I don't think the magisterium examines all the private revelations of holy persons - that is done by theologians in Rome who examine the lives and writings of religious persons - but if Rome has canonized someone as a holy person,then his private visions and revelations must be acceptable to the magisterium. The pope wouldn't canonize someone who lied about having seen or heard Jesus and Mary,or who communicated false visions and revelations as true.

Not to downplay at all the vision of St. Faustina (she's one of my favorite saints), or the writings of others, but....do we really *need* more than a fundamental knowledge of purgatory?

Not always,but in a way we do need more. We should accept whatever is true. It is evident from the visitations and visions of the saints that Jesus and Mary want us to know more about truth than what is found in catechisms,and they want to convey truth in a more persuasive manner then any catechism can.

Quote

We are not required to accept private visions or revelations as dogma or doctrine, and much of what has been written about purgatory, etc., is speculation, is it not?

Private visions and revelations are not themselves dogma or doctrine,so we don't need to accept them as such,but if they are accepted as true by the magisterium,they should be accepted as true by us. Much of what is written of doctrines is speculative,but if it is entirely in harmony with Catholic dogma,then it worthy of belief.

Okay, I'll happily grant you that!

Being somewhat of a skeptic myself, I have to ask, "Alright...just which of those private visions and revelations are, indeed, accepted as true by the magisterium?" If you can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Also, is there consistency in the reported visions/revelations that *are* accepted by the magisterium?

(You can p.m. me about this if you think it's digressing too much from the op of this thread.)

I don't think the magisterium examines all the private revelations of holy persons - that is done by theologians in Rome who examine the lives and writings of religious persons - but if Rome has canonized someone as a holy person,then his private visions and revelations must be acceptable to the magisterium. The pope wouldn't canonize someone who lied about having seen or heard Jesus and Mary,or who communicated false visions and revelations as true.

I think you over-reach your conclusions here. The canonization of a saint is NOT a point by point recognition of every wonder work associated with their lives, every locution, every vision, each and every miracle, etc.

A saint is sanctified for some demonstrable heroic virtue. The canonization process searches out miracles but those are the recognized ones, and very often most of us don't know what they are in their particulars.

So I think you have, as I said, over-reached with your conclusion that canonization is recognition of acceptance of every wonder-work attributed to the saint.

There is a universal teaching that we are not bound by ANY private mystical moment anywhere...saint or no saint.

Not to downplay at all the vision of St. Faustina (she's one of my favorite saints), or the writings of others, but....do we really *need* more than a fundamental knowledge of purgatory?

Not always,but in a way we do need more. We should accept whatever is true. It is evident from the visitations and visions of the saints that Jesus and Mary want us to know more about truth than what is found in catechisms,and they want to convey truth in a more persuasive manner then any catechism can.

Quote

We are not required to accept private visions or revelations as dogma or doctrine, and much of what has been written about purgatory, etc., is speculation, is it not?

Private visions and revelations are not themselves dogma or doctrine,so we don't need to accept them as such,but if they are accepted as true by the magisterium,they should be accepted as true by us. Much of what is written of doctrines is speculative,but if it is entirely in harmony with Catholic dogma,then it worthy of belief.

Okay, I'll happily grant you that!

Being somewhat of a skeptic myself, I have to ask, "Alright...just which of those private visions and revelations are, indeed, accepted as true by the magisterium?" If you can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Also, is there consistency in the reported visions/revelations that *are* accepted by the magisterium?

(You can p.m. me about this if you think it's digressing too much from the op of this thread.)

I don't think the magisterium examines all the private revelations of holy persons - that is done by theologians in Rome who examine the lives and writings of religious persons - but if Rome has canonized someone as a holy person,then his private visions and revelations must be acceptable to the magisterium. The pope wouldn't canonize someone who lied about having seen or heard Jesus and Mary,or who communicated false visions and revelations as true.

I think you over-reach your conclusions here. The canonization of a saint is NOT a point by point recognition of every wonder work associated with their lives, every locution, every vision, each and every miracle, etc.

A saint is sanctified for some demonstrable heroic virtue. The canonization process searches out miracles but those are the recognized ones, and very often most of us don't know what they are in their particulars.

So I think you have, as I said, over-reached with your conclusion that canonization is recognition of acceptance of every wonder-work attributed to the saint.

There is a universal teaching that we are not bound by ANY private mystical moment anywhere...saint or no saint.